list_chats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pagination defaults (page 0, limit 20) and the sort fields, but never states that this is a read-only operation, what a chat record contains, or any auth/rate-limit behavior. Partial disclosure for a zero-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is scannable. The argument list largely mirrors schema defaults, so some lines are near-redundant, but nothing is bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the shape of a returned chat; it only implies this indirectly via include_last_message. For a 5-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is adequate but leaves return-value expectations unset.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (params have only titles and defaults), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains query matches by name OR JID, and pins sort_by to the two legal values ('last_active', 'name'), which the schema does not constrain. Only the page/limit semantics beyond defaults are left implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get WhatsApp chats') plus a filtering scope ('matching specified criteria'), which is enough to separate it from get_chat (single chat) and list_messages. It never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'matching specified criteria' implies the tool is for filtered listing, and the pagination/sorting params imply long result sets. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives like get_direct_chat_by_contact or get_contact_chats, and nothing about prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.